In my opinion, whether administration and moderation here is biased or not is not as relevant as the fact that they allow anyone else's point-of-view (as long as the rules are followed) to be posted, no matter what the point-of-view may be. The admins and mods are human, and each will have their own unique points-of-view just like everyone else does.

If they censored peoples posts based on their bias, or insidiously tried to "sabotage" an "undesired" point-of-view, that would be what I consider unacceptable bias on the part of HA. I personally have never seen evidence of that.

Even if the HA administration and moderation staff were "pro-Ahead", as long as they allowed opinions of people who are not, then their bias would not taint the collective objectivity of the community, because although they are in charge of it, they are a vast minority of the member base (some 25/9000 or so?). The integrity of the information found on Hydrogenaudio, which is essentially a primary value of this community, is the result of all posts, not just the opinions of the admins/mods.

As for where that "balance" lies, each member believes and says what they want to, and if some like Ahead, don't like Ahead, or are ambivalent, each of them has their reasons accordingly.

because although they are in charge of it, they are a vast minority of the member base (some 25/9000 or so?).

Your message was otherwise reasonable, except that the staff certainly has different opinions. Lets take for example CiTay. I made him the 3rd (or 4th, Peter is officially FB2k admin) admin after it was obvious that Dibrom is reducing his time on HA. Ask CiTay if he's even pro-AAC...